 Do you think the second amendment would be a decent starting point for putting some power back into the civilians? The rights to bear arms if everyone was to be on equal footing with the police? That doesn't put it back into the civilians. The civilians already have that because you see places like Salt Lake City, Utah, where people are buying, in the stand of buying their first gun, they buy their second gun within three days. So that's already a right that they have, you know what I'm saying? So that has nothing to do with this situation. It has to do with literally people. People can't arm themselves, that's fair, or let them arm themselves. But there's much more deeper problems. Well, I think one good point is that you're saying that we need to let them restructure the system, but that means we're leaving it up to them. I didn't say let them, I said there needs to be, I didn't say let them. Because obviously if you let someone that has power think about the rules that are going to govern themselves, they're not going to govern themselves. Yeah, because the police officers haven't been- So listen to the people. Listen to what the people are saying, and the people are saying what? Defund the NYPD. Re-vamp the NYPD. Because this has been happening many times. And the police officers aren't doing a good job of, like, disciplining our police officers. They're definitely not. They're not. In that same sense, it's the same breath you just said. The police officers aren't doing a good job of policing themselves. Let that sink in. The police officers aren't doing a good job of policing themselves. What the fuck is America right now? What is this? I mean, do you think if everyone, I mean, if more people enacted the Second Amendment with the right to bear arms that, you know, these situations would happen less often? The Second Amendment is not the problem. The Second Amendment is the solution. The Second Amendment is already in place. So you can't say that's a solution. That's something that's already in place. Oh yeah, but what do you think about, like, city and local and state laws overriding the Second Amendment right to carry an arm? Where have they done that? I mean, New York City, it's pretty much impossible to get a pistol. But you can. I mean, not legally. I mean, New York City is not going to say that there's no right to bear arms. They will make it hard, but you still can. Oh yeah, but if 99% of the population. But you still can. But you still can, correct? That's a liberty that is in the Constitution, right? Whereas there are other things that are occurring in this and that same bill of rights that are being deprived of blacks is what I'm getting at. So to answer your question, because I think what you're getting at is if more people arm themselves, will the police do a better job of protecting? The point is that they're not policing themselves. Yeah, they're not. So if we all have the rights of our arms. To police ourselves. And we have more, yeah, that's part of it. So what I'm saying is that people can already do that. So it's a yes or no. People can already do that. Yes, advocate for the right for people to bear arms, correct, although that's a separate topic because that leads into the classification of what arms that you're bringing in. And there are certain classifications that I personally don't agree with, because it goes from you protecting yourself to you being a threat in the public, correct? So that's how I feel. That's at least my belief. It's a thin line. Bro, that's not even a thin line, bro. Once you've got more than five guns, what you need five guns for? Yeah, yeah, it's a kind of flag. What you need an AR for? Yeah, AR, military weapons. What you need the military weapons for? You're not protecting yourself. Yeah, it's not protecting anymore. That's literally you going with a vendetta. That's crazy. But what I will say is once you have that right, also say, hey, police officer, y'all got guns. What y'all don't need to be trigger happy to use these guns on people that are unarmed? Y'all got, I had a conversation with a police officer two days ago. Y'all got mace. Y'all got firearms. You got tasers. You got pepper spray. Bro, you got so much shit literally at your disposal. Are these collectible items? Use them instead of using lethal force is what I'm saying. Police officers have a very poor history of disciplining themselves. You think the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is kind of a step in putting us on some sort of equal footing with police officers. Do you mean, do I think that more citizens having guns is a good response to police having guns? Well, I mean, well, look, I mean, you have the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, and then you have local and state governments like New York City that pretty much infringe on our Second Amendment rights, like it's pretty much impossible to get a gun in New York City. So, if everyone, if there were a lot more responsible people that had guns, would that kind of put us on more equal footing with the police in a way? I don't buy the one good guy with a gun is gonna take out a bad guy with a gun. Where are all the good guys with guns? Well, it's not necessarily about that. It's that if police officers weren't put on such a pedestal, if other people had similar responsibility, the ability to have a gun, the ability to defend themselves, protect themselves, and make decisions in certain circumstances, would that put us on more equal footing with the police officers? As I said, they haven't done a good job of policing themselves. So now that we're kind of closer to where they are, they're not on that pedestal as much. Do you think the Second Amendment is, I mean, obviously it's not a solution. It's not the end-all-be-all thing, but is it like a good first step? Like, is it something putting us in the direction of giving the citizens more power as opposed to having police just controlling everything and deciding what happens to these police officers? I think there are sort of two different things going on here. One is that you want police and citizens to be on the same level and for one not to be on a pedestal. One way to do that is to take guns away from police. I've been living in- That's a bit of a pipe dream, isn't it? I don't think so. I've been living in Europe for the last few years. No, like- I was gonna say, I brought that up to several people. I lived in Edinburgh and in London and police don't have guns there. Police don't have tasers. Police don't have the option of shooting citizens. And I don't think it's a pipe dream at all. I think the idea of bringing citizens and police to the same level is a great idea. I don't think the way to do that is to make guns readily available to everyone in without checks, without making sure that people are gonna be responsible with guns, making sure that children don't have guns in- It is a tough scenario because in America, we have this culture and we have a lot of people that have illegal weapons. Everyone's kind of accustomed to people in authority having a gun. Whereas in those other countries, that's not the case. Those other countries, the citizens, don't really have guns, the police don't really have guns. So it's kind of tough to say, oh, can we take guns away from police? I think it's a little rich to be touting the idea that we as citizens have the right to defend ourselves, that we as citizens have the right to bring down a system and to bring the system down to our level, which is what the Second Amendment, I believe, is for, is to make sure that if a desperate or if a system is in place that takes rights away from citizens, the citizens can reclaim them and then also have the kind of language that harasses being made around looting and rioting that are being thrown around phenomenally. So the founding fathers wrote something along the lines of, we're not supposed to have a standing military, a standing army outside of a time of war and that guns are kind of a way for the citizens to protect themselves from a malignant government. So hypothetically, yeah, if you took guns away from police and the military is still standing in present, then we can't really justify taking away the arms of the citizens. Because what's preventing a tyrannical? I'm not saying we should take arms away from citizens. I'm saying that I think the checks that we have, especially in New York, are good checks to have for gun violence. Yeah. I don't really know if I'm the person you should be asking about this. No, I just like that. I just like the opinions. Yeah. That was great to thank you. The police haven't been doing a good job of policing themselves. So what's a good step in putting the power back on the people is, is the Second Amendment, is the right to bear arms something that can kind of put us in a step in the right direction is like an initial thing. We have the right to bear arms. Well, I mean, the main issue is, you know, state, local, state of government. Right, I understand that. So the right to bear arms was the right for a person, white guy, to bear arms to protect his property, black guy, and his kids, black guy's kids, and his interests in the country and his land. Black guy works in that land. I understand the right to bear arms is just what it was for us. Oh, you're referring to like the time period when the Constitution was written. Okay. When it was established and why it was established because they felt like the British was going to come in and bother. So it was never a law to empower us. And so what happened after that was the compoundment of laws to disenfranchise people exclusively. Now, if you think about dismantling that systemic racism first, then of course that's the answer. I believe so, because you would have dismantled and created an even field. What do you think about the founding fathers, you know, saying that the slave masses? Well, their idea was that the Second Amendment could be used to prevent a malignant or tyrannical government from taking over. Yeah, but that's also if you are like not a tyrannical tyrant government. Yeah. Like America was like, so I'm saying you have one saying, I don't want me over here. So let me protect myself from shit I would do. That's the way I looked at them in some sense. Founding fathers, that's just a list of white guy parts. That's what I call the Constitution because that's who wrote it. It was many, minus women and minus men. And I mean, minus people of color or any type of slave or indenture service, right? Even other white people, you gotta get started affluent. Okay. And so with that, I think that it would look different, right? The Second Amendment would be different from all of those other invariants. So what if you- Because people wouldn't want the right to bear arms knowing that everybody could have the same equal rights. So what if you just take that right to bear arms of face value right now in the current context of what's going on? But one, I'm anti-gun violence interrupter. I'm a gun violence interrupter, and I do anti-gun violence work. So I don't believe that a gun is the answer, right? Yeah. The other thing is like, I grew up on guns, super military, that's what I've done all my life. And I had a legal license before, right? And I think that if people had their own, like I train kids to get their federal firearm rights, to get them bonded and work for security companies, because most of them had a one-time felony with a firearm and I'll get that dismissed. And like maybe you want to be in a server, so maybe you feel like that's something you want to do. Good, I think that's a right, and we need to have that. But I can do that a hundred times a day, I would never catch up to the equal amount of racism and prejudice that impacts people from having that Second Amendment right. So I think the Second Amendment right doesn't apply to people who call it evenly, so you can't conceptually imagine it as a solution, because it would only mean that there's a million people of other color who don't like me right here with guns, and I'm trying to apply, and fighting the laws that him, him, and me from applying to them. Right, and so it would never be equal or a solution to violence, you know what I mean? Like more violence. Do you think it would allow us to kind of police ourselves and police the police a little better, take some power out of their hands? Well, taking the power out their hands is taking the power out of being a bully. The cops came from like a mob's system, right? They used to be like a gang. I don't know if people don't watch the Gangs of New York, it's an amazing movie with historical content. It literally tells you how these gangs were formed based on race, like the Italians came first, and the Irish, and they hated them, right? And so that's America, that's New York actually, right? That's our history. So we have never majorly overhauled that. They have defined and refined themselves individually since then. It has been no public input since then, because back when it was a gang, we had a problem with a copy to go shoot them, right? And it solved it, and it made sure that other people felt the same way, but that's punishment, I don't believe in punishment. Punishment does not change the effect of the person. It changes the way a person avoids the punishment, that's it, you know? So equality and there's a huge wealth gap that can never be fixed, but equality at least would make it fair without the systemic racism, the other prejudice and impacts and disenfranchisement from people coming. So it would never be a solution unless that happens. So Second Amendment gives you every human in the United States hypothetically the rights of their arms, but you go to New York City and you can't get a firearm. I think that we've got to look back to when the Second Amendment was written and when it was pertinent, and I think we can't be held by what our founding fathers put down, and we need to be able to adapt and be agile and make sure that we're able to move along as society adapts the basics of what was there as a foundation was certainly relevant then. We're agile enough creatures that we can understand what's the difference between right and wrong. Yeah. So what do you think about the Second Amendment being a good first step in everything? I guess I'm not understanding the which way you're phrasing. Hypothetically, what is the barrier between us and police? It's the authority to use legal force and to use the law to kind of be able to be right in that scenario. But if we enact our Second Amendment right, if everyone has the right to their arms and everyone becomes more responsible, do you think that's a good step in this whole big thing? I think we've got to start before that even and understand that when we're talking about funding and dollars that fund weapons, we need to look elsewhere as to where that money should be going. Well, I mean, they're never gonna take away weapons from the police, right? Police are always gonna have guns. I think we need to demilitarize. I think that's the big topic of what's going on right now. What do you think about other countries where like the police don't even have guns? You think that's a step in the way? I think we gotta look at the data that the other countries have in front of us and it's certainly, you know, from my perspective and my understanding, I don't think they have the same issues that we do. Do you think there's a possibility that this is kind of distracting from other things like perhaps, you know, the Fed and the bankers printing all this money and maybe like, you know, there's like, there's rumors about martial law and like, there's even stories of like police officers starting the riots. But it's hard to see where they're going with it. It's disappointing when you hear about those that are trying to capitalize on this situation. I think we are at an unbelievable phase where it's the capacity, think about what we could be doing at this very moment and the capacities of many is just stretched in. Thank you so much, man. Do you think the Second Amendment is like a good first step at least in getting people in a position of power to be equal with the police? Well, that's an interesting, I mean, to take up arms against the police force. I mean, it's basically putting everyone on an even level. Right. That's the truth. If it came down to it, I would, but... I mean, there's a very high percentage of people that illegally have guns in New York City. Absolutely. But I mean, I'm not against the Second Amendment. I'm actually, I believe in the Second Amendment. I don't believe in assault rifles and tanks and military and assault guns. I don't believe in the militarization of the Second Amendment. I believe you can have a pistol or a rifle and defend yourself. Not automatic weapons. Do you have an opinion about state and city jurisdictions overruling the Second Amendment? That's what I mean. That's basically what New York City's doing. In what regards? Well, no. I mean, the Second Amendment is your constitutional right to arms. Right. But New York City and certain parts of different states have passed laws that pretty much preach your Second Amendment rights under local jurisdiction. I mean, they also impede on our right to assemble and our First Amendment. So, you know, setting a curfew is suppressing your right to free speech and assemble. Also, putting police out to enforce that is suppressing it, you know? It's very systemic. It's similar to suppressing, you know, black people's votes in the countries and pushing everything back. It's just, basically, I mean, look, this is a democratic state. You know, this is a democratic city. Most of these cities, Minneapolis, these are cities that are controlled by Dems. But there's still this, it's almost a cliche, this like systemic thing where it's like, we need to fall in line no matter what, stay in order. I mean, the admin of these phones doing these kind of things, it's revolutionary. It's more people are getting involved before politicians get away with everything. Yeah. It's more than, you know, I mean, it's people in positions of power, hierarchy, these kind of things that, you know, no matter what, like fear billionaire is super powerful in this country. You're above the law. You really are. You know, there's people that get a slap on the wrist for committing far more crimes than some black kid on the corner when there's like a joint in his pocket and he's sitting in jail right now for, no one ever knows, because he can't afford bail. And he gets sucked up in the system. It's just bullshit. So, it's basically like, we just need the whole thing to kind of crumble and kind of rebuild things. I'm kind of getting off topic here, I know, but there's so much things, like I just, I definitely think that like the constitution needs to be rewritten for modern contemporary times, you know? The Electoral College is the most ridiculous thing ever. North and South Dakota have four senators with a population the size of like this park right now. It's just out of control. I mean, it's just not representation of the people, but what that is is most immigrant and black people of color and poor people communities are more in blue cities and around the coast. So those things are what like, you know, Republicans hold on to, and that's how they have a minority control over this country. What do you think about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, being used as a measure to prevent police brutality? I don't know. I think that's a tough issue to discuss. I'm not even sure how I feel about the right to bear arms period, but I mean, I think at this point, whatever is necessary, obviously not promoting violence or anything like that, but I think we need to do everything within our legal power to make sure our voices heard. So, I mean, over the past like 10, 20, 30 years, anytime something like this has happened, we've left it up to the police to like monitor themselves and discipline themselves. And they never have. So, I mean, do you think the Second Amendment would allow people to be put in an equal position to these police officers or so, that we now have authority ourselves to control what's going on? I worried to some extent that that'll help in justifying a lot of the injustice we already see because so often, right, you hear the argument when a black man's killed by a police officer that he was defending himself. I shudder to think how much more that would happen if rather than reaching for violence, people were actually reaching for guns. I do think there's a better way for that to be done and I think that's just making sure that like, we don't stop until there's change from the top down. You're like imagining police getting in shootouts with everyone. I mean, I have no faith that they wouldn't do that. I mean, there are unarmed black men dying. I can't imagine that if someone pulled out a gun to try to defend himself, that they wouldn't take that as a cue. I mean, if a man with his hands behind his back is aggressive, how aggressive is the man with the gun in his hands? Yeah. Exactly. That makes sense. Okay, thank you. Over the past dozens and dozens of years and stuff like this has happened over and over again, the police haven't done a good job at policing themselves. They haven't really done a good job at disciplining their own officers or making changes. Do you think the second amendment, you know, the right to bear arms is a good step in the right direction and a way of like taking police officers off their pedestal? Well, the second amendment was only designed so that you didn't need police to begin with. No one would go rob you when you know the household there had enough of guns and loved to shoot on the weekends. So the police, their actual goal from what I've been told back in the day was more or less rounding up free slaves or just vagabonds and stuff like that. They didn't have the power that they now. Now when you say, hey, you don't need your firearms because you have police, now you're taking them and replacing them with your own personal security. But when you do that, you lose your sense of pride or power over your own household. And now they can get away with doing this, but you gave them so much power that no one's going to answer to their authority. Yeah. So you think that like more people having a gun, more people being armed would put us on a more even playing field with the police? I think more people having awareness of who they are in their position in this country will be more effective than just weapons because a weapon of intelligence will go farther than just actual physical weapons because those people are still families too, they got to answer to it. So I mean, physical weapons to protect yourself will help with like local crime. But when it comes to police, you got to think, you put these people in charge of them, so there's no talent. I mean, the issue here is police brutality. So I mean, if people were armed and people had weapons that weren't enthrased upon by, you know, because you have the state, the city, local governments that are infringing on the Second Amendment are right. If this police brutality is a problem, then the first instance should be taken seriously because now the person that is in charge will have to question why that happened. When they could roll it under the rug, the Second Amendment comes into play but also says these people need to be dealt with first because you're giving them permission to do that and no one's being accountable. But who is that up to? If we just leave it to the people in charge, they haven't really done anything. Well, yeah, they haven't done anything but at the same time too, we still allegedly put them in power. So if the next police chief comes in there and let's say 300 people died at the hands of police, he would have to answer for that as a track record. It's like in the military. You can't, a soldier can't shoot unless the officer gives it a say for it. However, cops have the ability to do that. Something legalizes and allows them to do that. We don't know. We don't know what the police handbook says. We don't know that. And these are the questions we should be asking. Now on the Second Amendment right, yeah, if we have weapons now, we'll look like more of a threat to them. So now they'll feel like they need to have missiles next. So it's just a matter of asking the right questions and directing this energy to the people that we're right now ignoring. Because the police chief, he's probably somewhere right now in Manhattan and calling duty right now. Because he's like, hey, once the NBA comes back on, everybody is gonna forget. Once you see LeBron back on the court, this'll go away.